Thursday, March 03, 2011

Bracket Banter is our daily open thread to discuss all things bracket. Readers can post comments and questions during the night's games, and we will answer those questions as the night goes on.

Thursday's GamesOver the last 72 hours, the bubble has gone from a fun thing to criticize to a full-blown laughingstock. Virginia Tech, Colorado, Baylor, Alabama, Penn State, Clemson, Minnesota, Maryland, Memphis, and Southern Miss all lost critical bubble battles in the past three days, making the already weak bubble weaker than ever.

Those results have had an interesting impact on the three biggest games on tonight's schedule - Tennessee at South Carolina, UCLA at Washington, and USC at Washington State. Washington's seed slipped all the way to the bottom of the 10 line after a home loss to Wazzu over the weekend, and it appeared that a 2-0 week was going to be necessary to keep the Huskies in the bracket for another week. After all the bubble craziness the past three days, though, that might not be the case. A split, plus one Pac-10 tourney win, is probably all Washington needs to go dancing at this point.

Tennessee entered the week in a similar position. The Vols laid an egg at home against Mississippi State on Saturday, which gave them 12 losses on the year and made it seem like a 2-0 week was going to be necessary to keep them in the field. Now, it looks like a split plus one SEC tournament win will be enough to get Tennessee an at-large, despite the fact that they could finish with 14 losses. That would tie Georgia's record from 2001, when the Bulldogs got an at-large at 16-14. Georgia had the No. 1 SOS in the country and eight Top 50 wins that year; Tennessee has the No. 2 SOS and seven Top 50 wins heading into tonight's game against the Gamecocks.

Finally, USC takes on Washington State in a bubble battle that could only happen in the context of a 68-team field. These two teams have a combined nine losses to teams outside the Top 100 (nine!!), yet the winner will still be very much alive for an at-large berth. The loser of this game will need to win the Pac-10 tournament to get a bid; the winner will need to get to to the final to still be in the mix on Selection Sunday.

Conference TournamentsThe Big South semifinals are tonight, with top-seeded Coastal Carolina taking on VMI and second-seeded UNC-Asheville taking on High Point. Top seed Long Island plays St. Francis (PA) in the Northeast Conference quarterfinals, the Atlantic Sun quarterfinals continue with Jacksonville facing North Florida and Lipscomb facing Mercer, and the Ohio Valley quarters continue with Austin Peay taking on SE Missouri State and Tennessee Tech taking on UT-Martin. First round play in the Missouri Valley and American East also begins tonight. Top seed Missouri State will take on the winner of tonight's Illinois State-Southern Illinois game in the MVC quarters on Friday.

Also keep an eye on: Wisconsin at Indiana, St. John's at Seton Hall, Oregon State at Arizona

202 comments:

Is there any team in CUSA other than UAB capable of obtaining an at-large bid now?

If I'm a fan of teams of the 9th through 11th place Big East teams, is there ANY chance that the tournament committee is going to do something crazy like arbitrarily limit the conference bids to 8 (since no conference has ever had more than eight bids)?

If the committee arbitrarily limited the BE to 8 bids, it would cause a huge uproar, mainly because the top 10 teams in the BE are among the top 30 teams teams in the country and Marquette is probably among the top 35.

Belmont's resume is eerily similar to Davidson's back in 2008. Davidson also had a handful of losses to major programs and had ZERO top 100 rpi wins (Belmont actually has two). Their RPI might have been a little better than Belmont's.

Would Davidson even have made the tourney in 2008 had they needed an at-large to get in?

I'd disagree about the power conference teams in that Michigan has clearly been playing their way into the tournament by winning 7 of 10(and none of those losses are even remotely bad). They still need to beat Mich St., but finishing 8-3 while everyone else is flopping should really help their case.

Michigan STILL IS NOT A TOURNAMENT TEAM. Colorado, Baylor, Alabama, Clemson, BC, Nebraska, Oklahoma state > Michigan. What do all of those teams have in common? They've proven they can beat good teams, teams headed to the tournament. Michigan has NOT.

BTW, the teams Michigan has beaten in their 7-of-10 wins? RPI ranked 60(Minnesota, who like you guys say, is terrible now), 184, 174, 97, 59, 184, 42. So they have ONE nice win, and none over teams that will make the tournament if Michigan does in fact beat MSU. MSU will drop out, and that big push by UM will be all meaningless. A team who makes the tournament should be able to win against good teams. Michigan can't.

@anonymous---your 4 tops seeds are in order have to be: Ohio $t, Kansas, Pitt, Duke.

The only teams I can see even in the running at this point with BYU's loss are Purdue if they win the BTT, and Notre Dame. It's gonna be hard to justify ND because they won't even win the regular season BE title over Pittsburgh. I can see Pitt and ND both getting #1's if ND were to win the BE Tourny.

If Duke loses this weekend, and doesn't win the ACC Tourny and either Purdue or ND win their's I can easily see one of those teams get a # 1 over Duke. Just compare resumes at that point and look at the teams they have beaten compared to Duke. It's not even close.

@ Will---why wouldn't Purdue get one? what has Duke done better than Purdue, Pittsburgh, and Notre Dame? and if Duke goes 1-2 in their next 3 games and either one wins their conference tourney? Pitt is gonna be one regardless. ND and Purdue will both have more quality wins in their respective tourneys than Duke has in the last month. Not to mention Duke can't win on the road.

Unfortunately, there's no way to know if Michigan is playing better ball than anyone else, since all michigan is doing is beating up on bad teams. If a 13 loss team is getting, they'll have to have special quality wins. Michigan doesn't even have OK quality wins. Michigan doesn't have ONE quality win.

Big talk for someone who can't even post their name... My definition of who should be in the tournament differs from yours, thus I must be stupid? How old are you? Does your mommy know you're using her computer?

Michigan should not be in. They are only in the convo because of their fans flooding the baords. In reality though, they've beat NO ONE. I hope they are in the tourny actually so that my squad can play them. Warm up game for round 2.

I know you said Washington needs to split and win one in the tourney (which I tend to agree with), but I think if they beat UCLA that will probably lock up a spot even if they lose their next 2. At that point they would be 3rd in the Pac 10, but with a 3-1 record against the top 2 with the one loss being a somewhat contoversial 1 pt loss at Arizona. With the bubble the way it is that will probably be enough.

All those stats have little meaning when you realize that michigan has ZERO quality wins. All of those other teams have proven that they can beat good teams, michigan has not. Thus, Michigan should be lower in the pecking order than them, no matter how many top 100 teams they've beaten.

Again, with the anonymous... My statements categorically support my point that the best teams should make the tournament, not the worst. Michigan has done nothing but lose to good teams. At least the others beat good teams sometimes...

"Why not? the BE had 3, 2 years ago. Louisville, UConn, and Pittsburgh."

and those 3 teams were 2, 4 and 8 in the rpi at the end of the regular season. right now ND is #9 with duke at 4, purdue at 6 and unc at 10. if ND were to run the table, then i'm assuming it would move up in rpi. however, it will be impossible for ND to pass both duke and unc because of them has to win the game on saturday. ND is not going to get a 1 seed over the ACC regular season champion when it finished 2nd in the BE. ND's OOC resume isn't exactly great either as it has only beaten 1 NCAAT team (wisconsin).

"My statements categorically support my point that the best teams should make the tournament, not the worst."

But you haven't supported that. Not in the realm of reality at least. Therefore, I return to my original statement. And now we're caught in an infinite loop. Brilliant. Failures in Intelligentsia and Logic. Will's a winner. And not the good Charlie Sheen kind of winner.

If Duke loses to UNC on Saturday, they won't win the ACC either, so now we're left with an interesting debate of ACC #2 vs BE #2 vs B10 #2. Duke will have 0 good road wins (best: Maryland...ouch), Notre Dame has more very good wins but also has a few large losses, and Purdue might be playing as good as anybody in the nation right now. In the end, we'll see how the tournaments go. In the end, I think if Duke beats UNC and makes it to the conf final OR wins the conf tournament, they'll get the last 1, but if they don't do both, it opens the door for whoever finishes stronger of Purdue/ND.

As for the bottom, I still think it's sick that Michigan is even on the bubble with their best wins over Oakland, Harvard, MSU and Minnesota, but every team has some really ugly flaws if they're not already locks. Let's just hope some teams surpise (in a good way) in the conference tournys and we find a few teams that deserve bids.

Why does it matter who you lost to, if you can't provide a level of ability good enough to beat tournament level teams? That's like the prosecution coming into a case and saying "Prove he didn't do it". The burden of proof in this case is on the team to show that they are a good team, and Michigan has proven nothing.

Yes, Road wins are harder to get that home wins. However, if you can't prove that you can beat tournament teams, you shouldn't be invited. And if home wins over tourney teams are so easy to come by, how come michigan doesn't have any?

duke has beaten ksu, marquette and butler on neutral courts. guess what kind of courts the NCAAT is played on?

georgia and gonzaga are barely in the NCAAT. if UNC beats duke and goes to the ACC final (winning the final is irrelevant because the committee is lazy and won't make either or brackets on saturday for conference finals unless there is a bid stealer playing), then it will get the last #1 seed. it would be unprecedented for the ACC regular season and tournament winner not to get a 1 seed.

Will, Clemson as in the team that Michigan beat on their own court is better than Michigan? And Minnesota, the team that is lost without Nolen and their own coach admits isnt going to the tournament and just lost to Michigan on their own court is better than Michigan? Yes, Michigan hasnt beaten anyone but they have played Syracuse, Kansas, OSU (twice) down to the wire and easily could have won not to mention the 1 in a million pure luck shot at the end of the Wisconsin team. In their only 3 losses over the last 10 games, 2 were on a final 3 point shot and one was by 9 at #1 OSU. In normal years they probably wouldnt be considered a tourney team but with the expanded tourney and weak bubble and the fact that they are playing their. Est basketball right now they are and should be. Asuming the beat MSU and Illinois they will be in and they may not even need the illinois win. This Michigan team ia dangeroua and i hope they are juat as underestimated by whatever 5 or 6 seed they play in the tourney as they are by uninformed individuals such as yourself will.

So, assuming they win saturday against a top 50 team, and assuming they win their first and only game of the year over a tourney team? Why don't we just assume they beat purdue and OSU, and give them the auto-bid?

Because in order to be called good, you have to prove you can beat good teams. On 20% of occasions, those teams are too bad to beat bad teams. However, on 15% or so of those occasions, they are good enough to beat good teams. Michigan, so far, has been good enough to beat a good team 0% of the time. The first two percentages were approximations. The point is that until you beat a good team, you can't be called good.

Will, you are allowed your own opinion, but now that you have expressed it, you can know that you are pretty much the only one that holds it. You are trying to narrow the whole season down to an extremely small sample size. If you follow your logic to its end, you would have a really, really messed up field of 68.

There's probably about an 85-90% chance that the 1 line is Ohio State, Kansas, Pittsburgh, and Duke when all is said and done and it will be close to 100% if Duke beats North Carolina this weekend. The only way those four don't make it is if Duke goes 1-2 down the stretch and if Notre Dame or Purdue (in that order) win their conference tournaments.

@bracket101---with that said are the chances good that the selection committee would put both O$U and Pittsburgh in the Cleveland pod? I saw some where they had Pitt in D.C but I thought the whole point is to be as protected as possible if you are a top 12 seed which means Cleveland is 2 hours closer to the Burgh than DC is...

Will, tell me how this Minnesota team is a good team? Forget WVU, Purdue and UNC, that is a different Minnesota team. Until you give me a solid answer on that, I don't want to hear you complaining about Michigan and promoting Minnesota anymore. Minnesota since losing Al Nolen has lost to Northwestern, Michigan, MSU, PSU, Illinois, OSU, Indiana and Purdue and have only beaten bottom dweller Iowa on the road and 9th place Northwestern at home. This Minnesota team is not good, and has no right even being compared to Michigan at this point. As for Clemson, they lost at home to Michigan earlier in the year before Hardaway Jr. and Morgan really started playing the way they are now. Colorado just lost to Big 12 bottom feeder ISU. Alabama was just blown out at Florida, have lost to every good team they've played except for UK (a team that has proven to suck away from Rupp Arena) and only have 19 wins because they play in the crappy SEC. Like Colorado, Nebraska lost to ISU on the road and their "quality" wins have come at home (Texas should not be considered a quality win as they have proven to be weak and vulnerable in February/March). Guess what, the NCAA tournament is not played on teams home courts, therefore, the fact that Nebraska and Colorado can't beat anyone away from home should be a point of concern. Who has Oklahoma State beaten? Missouri at home? Michigan is not an elite team, but they are playing well right now, have proven to be able to play with anyone, have wins over PSU (twice), MSU (twice after Saturday), Clemson, Oakland and Harvard. All of those are bubble teams or tournament teams (in PSU's case, its a stretch but some still consider them on the bubble). If Michigan wins Saturday and beats Illinois in the quarterfinals of the BTT, they will be dancing.

Will as much as you want to deny it (in all caps no less), Michigan's record against the RPI Top 100 is comparable or better than almost all the teams you seem to think have more "quality wins."

Perhaps you think only RPI Top 25 wins count as quality wins, which is fair enough. But your abject refusal to use bad losses as a measure of how well a team is playing right now hurts your argument almost as much as screaming in all caps something nobody else believes. Yes Michigan has beat up on weaker teams, but the whole reason such a ridiculously young team is even on the bubble in the first place is the fact that beating up on weaker teams is more than you can say for your group of bubble teams with "quality wins" right now.

And if you think Oklahoma State and Clemson have more quality wins than Michigan, even by your own standards, then you're letting your fear of Trevor Mbakwe going pro and Tubby Smith bolting for Georgia Tech at the end of the year cloud your judgment.

"Will as much as you want to deny it (in all caps no less), Michigan's record against the RPI Top 100 is comparable or better than almost all the teams you seem to think have more "quality wins.""

top 100 wins is a completely meaningless stat if the wins were piled up against teams in the 70s and 80s (ahem, michigan). wins against projected NCAAT teams is what matters -- not wins against NIT teams.

If Michigan beats MSU and Illinois in the 4/5 Big Ten game, they're in. If they beat MSU and lose to Illinois, they'll be one of the last teams in or first teams out depending on what else happens on the bubble, leaning towards out. Is there anybody here that disagrees with this statement?

Notre Dame has the best shot to replace Duke (if they stumble) as a 1 if they win out due to their neutral court win over Wisconsin. Purdue does not have a comparable non-conference win. ND still has to win at UConn to even have a chance, so this is a long shot. The ones are pretty much set. The battle for two-seeds is still completely wide open, there are probably six Big East teams that could get one by winning the tournament.

Agree. michigan would have to sweat it out and probably would only have about 40% chance of making it at that point. They beat MSU and Illinois they are a lock and would probably get as good as a 10-11 seed.

Point #1: It doesn't take any more guts (or whatever) to post under a name like Will or Matt or Chris. You might as well say anonymous.

Point #2: The Michigan argument is immaterial. If they beat Michigan State and Illinois, they'll have 2 more wins over tournament teams and be in the tournament. If they don't, nobody will be talking about them anymore.

I disagree. MSU has the "name" and history and wether we want to admit that, the committee will take that into consideration. They are not even really considered on the bubble right now they are projected as a solid 10 seed. I think if MSU beats Michigan they will be 10-8 and a lock for the tournament no matter what they do. if they lose they need to win the first game of the BTT(but that would be vs iowa or IU)to be a 60/40 chance, win the next round to be a lock.

Will, I'm with you on both MSU's and UM's profile being crazy weak. But so is EVERYONES. I think the winner of UM/MSU is probably in, and the loser has a chance to rebound in the tourny. It's scary that we've sunk this low, but we've gotta find 68 teams somehow.

"Because 1 seeds make the final 4 with a huge degree more regularity, and have 3x the national titles of any other seed. I like stats."

you are confusing causation with correlation. teams go to the FF and win the NC because they are very good and get hot at the right time -- not because they got a 1 seed. it just happens that the 4 1 seeds usually include 4 of the best teams. in 2004, uconn was a 2 seed but vegas (and the smart money) had uconn as the favorite (they delivered).

on paper, a team that is a 1 (versus a 2) should have a slightly easier schedule. however, in reality, after the first round, seeding don't really matter and it's more about match-ups. do you really think that playing a projected 7, like temple, is any easier than playing a projected 8, like KSU?

I furthermore postulate that MSU, if they get a double digit seed, will be the most likely of the double digit seeds to make the sweet sixteen.They are 16-4 vs teams NOT included in the top 15 of your S-curve. Additionally, they have wins over Wisconsin, Illinois, and Washington, AND the good minnesota.

I have a general question For B101 not involving Will, or people being angry with Will, or the University of Michigan:

At the moment, BC has the #1 SOS within the ACC, having played the bottom three teams only twice (for comparison, VT has played the bottom three teams six times). They have Wake at home on Sunday, and they're looking at the 5 seed in the ACC Tournament, which would mean a rematch with Wake four days later.

In your opinion, is it better for BC to (presumably) get to 20 wins and 10 in conference at the sacrifice of RPI and strength of schedule? Or is this bad luck re: the scheduling gods for the Eagles, and they'd have been better served getting the 4 seed, regardless of whether they ended up losing to, say, Clemson in the quarters.

a combined 33 losses for those 3 wins, rpi 39, 41 and 66(take them out of your argument mich beat them too)

but you refuse to except michigan's winsmsu 43harvard 44

The wisconsin win is nice but if you watched the game MSU got dominated the whole game at home and came back from down 8 with 2 min left to win in OT(9 out of 10 times wiky finishes that game). Michigan lost to wiconsin on a banked 3 pter(9 out of 10 times that ball doesn't go it). I am aware that a win is better than a loss, but the performances of both msu and michigan are very very close, yet one is a lock the other shouldn't be mentioned?

The MSU win is a good win for Michigan. However, you can't compare the teams' resumes... Michigan state has 4 wins over teams better than michigan's best win, and has just 4 losses v teams not in the top 15 of the S-curve, whereas U of M has just 6.

I will say one thing about U of M... They know how to schedule. If you switched the results they had in january for the results they had in february, they'd be playing to host an NIT game, not for the right to play in the tournament. Beating a bunch of bad teams at the end of the year doesn't mean enough to get them in. If, after only beating one tournament team all year, they happen to win their next two games over tourney teams, they should be mentioned, but excluded.

@mag - But you don't know who happens to be hot and who happens to be cold, or what any of their seeds are. All you know is that you over many years of data, 1 seeds do better than 2 seeds, which includes teams that eeked into the 1 line and teams that just missed being 1s. Just because KSU is a team everyone realizes is scary and might be put on an 8 line doesn't change that.

I obviously know that U of M doesn't make their own schedule. They just got lucky with being able to play 6 of their last 9 against terrible teams. I concede that MSU is better than I thought they were. There, now michigan has one win over a tournament team. Combined with their great RPI and SOS, that deserves... What? a 6 seed? This team still has no business being in the tourney discussion, and will ultimately end up outside the bubble.

Nick, I refuse to believe that a team can lower its chances of making the tournament by winning. BC's problem is inconsistency. What's sad about that is it seems their inconsistency has less to do with how well they play from night to night and more to do with whether Reggie Jackson is in Steve Donohue's doghouse from night to night. Jackson is a talented guy, but from what I've seen he also has an attitude. That being said I think BC is probably closer to in than most of the other bubble teams with their decent RPI and blowout win @ Virginia Tech.

If MSU loses to Michigan, Illinois beats Indiana at home, and Penn State beats Minnesota, that sets up a 4-way tie for 4th in the Big Ten. Michigan has the tiebreaker at 4-1 vs. the other 3, then Illinois at 3-2, then PSU and MSU would be tied and subject to a lengthy tiebreaker. Neither beat OSU or Purdue, both split with Wisconsin, both swept by Michigan, both split with Illinois, both swept Northwestern, both swept Minnesota...but PSU didn't lose to Iowa. So PSU would be 6 and MSU 7 in the Big Ten Tournament, setting MSU up for a 7/10 matchup with Iowa. MSU wins that game, and I have to feel they're about as "in" as Tennessee, Marquette, and Washington considering how those three have been hemorrhaging home losses recently. In this case, Will is right those 4 teams quality wins separate them from the rest of the bubble.

The only problem I had earlier is that Will made it sound like Michigan's not even a bubble team, and I disagree with that notion. In any case this isn't the BCS we'll settle it on the court.

Last of all, I find it the grandest of ironies that Michigan gets so much run on this board when Michigan allegedly isn't a school known for basketball fans. I remember a time when Michigan was committed to two-sport excellence the way Texas, Florida, and Ohio State are now and I want to see that again.

"@mag - But you don't know who happens to be hot and who happens to be cold, or what any of their seeds are. All you know is that you over many years of data, 1 seeds do better than 2 seeds, which includes teams that eeked into the 1 line and teams that just missed being 1s. Just because KSU is a team everyone realizes is scary and might be put on an 8 line doesn't change that."

repeat after me: causation does not equal correlation. you seem to be having a difficult time with that one.

All this Michigan-MSU talk will be irrelevant after saturday, because one team or the other will clearly have the upper hand.

Harvard, VCU, and Wichita aren't getting at-large bids. The MVC and Ivy are one-bid leagues. VCU could steal a bid to make the CAA a 3-bid league. Wazzou needs to win their last 2 and at least one game in the Pac-10 tourney, probably two.

@Will: Sir, I'll give you this, you can generate discussion! Well done. And no name calling either (I'm talking to YOU Will is an A******).

Like it or not, Michigan is putting on the show right now. I tend to agree with you, I think they need to beat MSU and take 2 in the BTT. Others think State and 1. It's that lack of a marquee game to hang their hat on. 2 BTT wins will give them one over a top tier team and that would seal it.

I had agreed with out about State until your revision. I think you were right the first time. I think if State loses to UM they are out unless they make BTT finals. Beat Michigan and they are probably in but would lock with 1 BTT win.

I guess I'm kind of biased being out here in NC, I think Clemson should get one too if they win a ACC Tourney game. But that's my east coast bias hitting.

In the discussion of Big Ten bubble-ish teams, if we talk about "good" Minnesota and "bad" Minnesota, we could probably talk about "good" MSU and "bad" MSU as well.

Since the departure of Korie Lucious, MSU has done pretty much what Michigan's done: lost to the top of the conference, beaten some of their fellow mediocre teams (PSU, Illinois, Minnesota), and had a couple of questionable games (blowout loss at Iowa, one-point win at home against Indiana).

Their SOS will probably keep their RPI high enough that even finishing 17-14 will probably get them in, but they're certainly not the team they were in January.

(FWIW, I don't think that Michigan has the resume of a normal bubble team, but they are 7-3 in their last 10 and would keep that with a sweep of the Spartans and then a semifinal loss in the conference tournament. They have no resume-topping wins, but with two more wins over top-40 RPIs and a loss to a top-10 RPI to boost their SOS, they'll be pretty good compared to what'll be left when it's time to fill the 12s.)

Well, what did I say? It's my east coast bias... I'm a transplant from the midwest to ACC country and all you hear about day after day year after year is how great the ACC is... And well with Duke, UNC and all they do put on some entertaining basketball.

Yeah, Clemson probably needs a couple tourney wins to get in. 2 should do it unless they lose between now and the tourney. If that happens, they'll need to win the ACC tourney.

I'm 50/50 on Michigan with a win over Michigan State and one in the BTT. You can make the arguement either way.

If they win on Sat vs. VaTech they will get the 4 seed in the ACC tourney and probably play BC. If they win that, they play Duke. If Clemson wins their next 2 and losses to Duke, they will be in. I will bet anyone that. They DO NOT need 2 ACC tourney wins unless they lose to VT.

Bottom line...a 9-7 ACC team with a RPI around 50 (59 now) that made the semifinals of the ACC tourney WILL NOT be left of a 68 team tourney.

Nick - I'd say it's better for BC to have played the schedule they played. The committee has showed they don't care about the "20 wins" "top 4 ACC" or "9/10 ACC wins" that they used to in light of unbalanced schedules. And that's especially true in light of the fact that playing Wake is the equivalent of playing Longwood this year.

And outside of Wake there's no benefit in playing the bottom of the ACC because a) you get no benefit from a win, and really hurt by a loss and b) as a BCS team they probably still have the talent to beat you if things go right, especially on the road. See Georgia Tech, who beat VT and UNC, or UVA, who beat VTx2 and Clemson.

Much better to get two shots and UNC/Duke/FSU if you can - won't be punished that much for a loss, and gives you an additional chance at a quality win.

"@mag - But you don't know who happens to be hot and who happens to be cold, or what any of their seeds are. All you know is that you over many years of data, 1 seeds do better than 2 seeds, which includes teams that eeked into the 1 line and teams that just missed being 1s. Just because KSU is a team everyone realizes is scary and might be put on an 8 line doesn't change that."

Also, most of the past national champions and FF participants have been from schools east of the Mississippi. Are you a big proponent of moving schools west of the Mississippi to locations east of the Mississippi to increase the probability of winning NCs and going to the FF?

Boston College shouldn't get in simply on the basis of losing to Miami at home. As a 'Canes alum, they are TERRIBLE on the road, especially in the ACC where they've only won two out of their last 16 road games.

One of those was a one-point win over Wake this year, and the other was a beatdown that they almost choked against BC.

With all the ugly losses of so-called bubble teams, why is almost no one talking about a second bid for the Ivy League. Princeton and Harvard are both in the RPI Top-50, have more top-100 RPI wins and fewer 100+ RPI losses than a lot of teams you and others keep talking about.

Curious if Florida State loses their game at NC state and their first game in the ACC tourney, if they will still be in? The way the bubble keeps getting worse and worse, I feel like they should still be able to sneak into the bracket if that scenario unfolds, unless there are a lot of bid stealers.

If Tennessee loses tonight @ South Carolina (entirely possible the way they're playing right now), then let's say they lose to Kentucky at home (maybe not as possible considering how incredibly badly Kentucky plays on the road). Tennessee would be 7-9 with 2 home losses to SEC West teams and a loss to South Carolina, a team even Kentucky and Auburn could crush on the road.

If that happens, could Tennessee miss the tournament, even with the #1 SoS and win @ Pitt?

If by Michigan putting on a show you mean beating 6-11 Minn (3rd to last in conf.), losing to Wisc, beating 3-14 Iowa (last place in Conf.), losing to Ill, and beating 3-13 Indiana (2nd to last place in conf.) in their last 4 games, then yeah...I guess they are putting on a show. I envy the UM fans in here for their optimizim. However far fatched.

/\"Scott Suggs, who missed the past three games due to a strained left MCL, is on the court taking shots. He's wearing a black knee brace, but looks like he'll be available to play tonight. Coach Lorenzo Romar said C.J. Wilcox will start tonight."

Not a huge upset by any means by Seton Hall. Pomeroy has them as the #65 team in the country and on their home floor, most teams would be expected to lose to them. In any major conference, it's very difficult to win an away game.

AN 10:13, I don't think St. John's is an "inconsistent" team so much as they are a team that needed to go through, and still is going through, the process of learning to become a good team.

They started the season playing a new system under a new coach, and learned to win small stakes for the first time in their 4 years together (Alaska). Then they started reading their NYC press clippings, relaxed, and had 2 terrible OOC losses. But they learned from those OOC setbacks. Those setbacks were important to their development this season. They won another small stake event (Holiday), and started playing well against stiff competition at home but getting murdered on the road (Georgetown, Lousiville, and Notre Dame). Then came the Duke game at home in which they waxed Duke and realized they can beat anyone at home, and they took off on a pretty sick run concluding with an almost dominant road win over Villanova.

In my mind the Seton Hall loss is the next stage in the learning process. They did not play their best game against Seton Hall. Now Lavin and Keady get to back to teaching. I expect St. John's to make another learn, digest, and jump after this loss. All of which is part of the process of a team learning to win.

Can we all agree that the chance of Michigan beating state and then Illinois is practically nil? All michigan has to do is play better for the next two games than theyve played all year. I give them a 6% chance of winning the next two games. If they do, they're on the bubble. If not, they should shut up.

Will, may I bet that 6% with you? I even would consider giving you 8%. Maybe even 10%. I could even do 15%, but that is tops. 6%, really? Explain that math. Michigan will be favored over Michigan St. Michigan can beat Illinois. 6%? I wish you were Vegas.

Will, did you watch any of Michigan's games against the teams you love to point out as losses?

If you had, you would know they were right in it with many of those teams, Illinois, OSU, Kansas, Wisconsin, etc.

I would put Michigan's chances of beating MSU and Illinois much higher than 6%. They are favored at home over MSU, and they lost a close one to Illinois on the road. I can't see why the chances of them beating MSU at home and Illinois in a neutral site game would be so low in your opinion.

20% would be+400 and 4 to 1.Come on people this is bracketology can we at least do some decent math here when arguing about stupid Michigan.

Fact of the matter is Will is right in saying that Michigan has not beaten a very good or great team. They've beaten quite a few good teams, but usually when they've been playing poorly. Definitly not deserving of a tourney bid in my opinion, but they might end up gettting one since like the last 8 or so teams in are all gonna be not really deserving.

In other news Alabama passed Long Island in rpi today to get up to number 86. Atta way Bama, just because the SEC is a big conference and ur doing well in it u may get to be the worst team ever to make the tourney as an at-large.

I know this may sound insane after their 8 game losing streak in January and early February, but with a win at Marshall and a decent run in tourney is UCF back on the bubble?? 3 wins over rpi top 50 and seven over top 100. (8 if they beat Marshall)

Also UAB should be well in if not a lock with a win in their final game. RPI 28 and 8 wins over rpi top 100. Seems like a tourney team to me.

I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and a big butt and my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure at one point I dated a Michigan grad. And she dissed me real bad and so I decided for the rest of my life to suspend reality and just take my anger out on Michigan in a meaningless online forum and make myself look stupid.

What's the deal? Why do you care? No matter what, several undeserving teams will make the tournament. No matter what, all of them will lose in either the first or at worst second round.

In my opinion... Michigan deserves it more than several other teams if the season ended today. In my opinion, Michigan has a better chance moving forward than several other teams.

Why do you get all crazy and personal about such a silly issue?

At the end of the day, you either pick a team with a lot of bad losses, or almost no good wins. In my opinion, the team with almost no good wins is better than the team with a lot of bad losses. That's my opinion, and I think it will also be the opinion of the committee. Time will tell.

Lost on last second tip in to Texas Tech on the road, lost in OT to Iowa St, lost by 2 pts @ Kansas... they have been blow out twice the entire year and both to teams that will get a 7 seed or higher... (Kansas will get a 1)...

Michigan on the other hand has 10, 13, 16, 19 (to Indiana? ouch) and 14pt losses.... sorry but to me means they are not always showing up...

Considering Michigan beat MSU on the road and "should have beat" illinois on the road they lost by 2, I don't see how you could think playing MSU at home and Illinois on a neutral court this go around is only 10%. More like 40%

"Indiana looked refreshed, playing one of its best games all season after a six-day break. Michigan shot a season-low 23.8 percent from the field in the first half and finished at 36.4 percent."

Wow... using Michigan's worst game and Indiana's best game to make Michigan look bad.

NEBRASKA LOST TO DAVIDSON! Davidson is in the bottom half of the SOUTHERN conference. And they lost at HOME. How is that respectable? What's your excuse for that? Michigan's stumbles have been in conference, and in a very good conference. Nebraska struggled out of conference against BAD teams.

Personally, I think Nebraska should be in too. They have plenty of ranked wins to counter their bad losses.

Look, I too am not that optimistic about Michigan beating MSU: it will require another lights-out performance from 3pt range by Tim Hardaway Jr who is a freshman and you can't expect consistency from freshmen. Also, Michigan has never been able to guard Kalin Lucas, even when they beat MSU. Lucas could single-handily win Saturday's game in much the same way that Jordan Taylor beat Indiana all by himself last night.

Other than that, Michigan has *never* beat Illinois in the Big Ten Tournament. Ever. Illinois' ability to jam the lane with 3 or 4 7-footers is a terrible match up for Michigan, and they don't have the bodies down low to get Tisdale into foul trouble.

That being said, considering Michigan won @ the Breslin Center for the first time since 1997 and came within 1 shot of beating Illinois @ Champaign for the first time since 1995, to say its impossible or even extremely unlikely is overdoing it.

But by saying Michigan is not even a bubble team and that no amount of losses by other bubble teams will put them behind Michigan exclusively by virtue of RPI Top 25 wins to choke-prone teams like Duke, Texas, and everybody in the Big East (the Big Ten has no choke-prone elite teams to prey upon which is why their conference RPI is so high), Will is just sounding like a hater.

Could the selection committee end up saying the tie breaker is quality wins? Perhaps. Could they also say the tie breaker is who is playing their best right now? Sure. Could they make a point of emphasis of including more mid majors like they did in 2006 when Utah State and Air Force were controversially awarded the last at large bids? Yeah they could do that too. I mean, at this rate all those major conference bubble teams losing could be just the excuse the committee needs to include 3 C-USA teams or 2 Horizon League Teams or 2 Missouri Valley teams.

If Marquette loses at Seton Hall, they'll have to win two Big East tourney games to be a lock. One win would leave them squarely on the bubble, and they'd need to hope for a relatively bid-stealer-free Championship Week.

It doesn't get more sickening than that. Missouri State hits 3 straight 3s and Southern Illinois misses 2 straight front ends in the final 3 minutes, culminating in a Missouri State buzzer beater to win the game 58-56.

Yes, but no one is arguing about the Big East. People are arguing about the Big 12 and the Big 10. I know they all have Big in the title, but you should be able to distinguish between them none the less.

Nebraska is the 6th best team in the third best conference. Michigan is the (tied) 5th best team in the second best conference. In my opinion, Michigan has a slight edge.

At the beginning of league play (January 10), B101 predicted 6 Big 10 and 6 Big 12 teams to make the tournament. Considering all play was in conference, I see no reason for that to change. The winner of the Colorado Nebraska game should be in. The winner of the MSU UofM game should be in. The loser should be stuck on the bubble and need to do something in the conference tournament.

In the last 2 weeks Michigan has somehow became the most overrated team in America. All they have done in that time is lose and beat the worst two teams in their conference. It took overtime to beat Iowa no less.

Palin should hire UM fans to do her campaigning and she WILL win presidency next term.

I'm surprised SOS isn't quoted more often here when comparing bubble teams. I'm a Kansas fan, but I can tell you that Michigan is definitely ahead of Nebraska in the pecking order because of who they played. If the committee really wanted to choose the best teams, Virginia Tech would've made the tournament last year, but they didn't because of their SOS. I think VT is in pretty good shape this year because they took that to heart and went out and scheduled Purdue, Penn St, UNLV, Oklahoma St, Kansas St, and Mississippi St. Michigan, likewise, also scheduled pretty rigorously. Nebraska, on the hand, has nothing to show as far as tough OOC opponents.

The committee has made it abundantly clear the last few years: who you play is just as important as how you play.

Nebraska may be tournament worthy, but they'll have to make the Big XII semis (probably the final) to have any chance because of that OOC schedule. Michigan doesn't have nearly as big of a burden

Ohio St.@Ohio St.Syracuse(neutral court)PurdueKansaswisconsin(fluke buzzer beater)@WisconsinThese are 7 of Michigans 12 losses, all of which will be 1,2, or at worst 3 seeds. So Michigan is 18-5 against non-top 12 teams on the curve.Michigans other losses are against RPI 39(Illinois, 62(UTEP), 66(Minnesota), 92(Northwestern) and 177(@Indiana). One bad loss on the road very early on to Indiana.

In case I am a admirer Buy Cheap RS Goldconnected with groups of your 9th via Eleventh position Large Distance groups, is there Just about any opportunity how the competition panel can do some thing crazy such as with little thought control this meeting rates for bids Runescape Goldto 8 (since simply no discussion has ever had in excess of eight offers)?

Bracketology 101 has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal and on ESPN Radio affiliates across the country. The site is designed to serve as a more reliable, more accurate alternative to the Bracketology selections of other major sports websites.
Rather than predict teams based on the season ending today, or make wild predictions of the future, Bracketology 101 uses a unique "projection-prediction" method of selecting teams, giving fans a much more realistic idea of where their favorite teams stand in the eyes of the selection committee.
While other bracketologists favor conferences or teams or rely entirely on RPI rankings in making their picks, we factor in a team's resume as a whole - big wins, bad losses, in and out-of-conference wins, upcoming schedules, conference tournament sites, and each team's overall strengths and weaknesses compared to other teams on the bubble. Our "Field of 68" is updated every Monday throughout the season, with daily updates coming during Championship Week.

Join The B101 Team!

Do you want to advertise on Bracketology 101 during March Madness? Do you want to sponsor one of our upcoming daily brackets? E-mail us at bracketologyblog@yahoo.com for ad rates and details.

Follow B101 On Twitter

Bracketology 101 is now on Twitter! To follow B101 on Twitter, just click on the Twitter logo above.

How B101 Stacks Up

The numbers speak for themselves: Over the last five years, Bracketology 101 is the most accurate bracketology site on the Internet. We produced the best bracket in 2006, the second best in 2007 and 2008, and the fifth best in 2009. We are the only bracketologists to produce a Top 5 bracket four of the last five years. No other bracketologist has placed in the Top 5 more than twice. For a complete breakdown of our bracket stats from the last four years, click on the “We’re #1!” logo above.

The 40-60 Club

On top of correctly predicting 64 of the 65 tournament teams in 2008, Bracketology 101 also became the first bracketology site to ever seed 40 teams exactly and 60 teams within one seed line of their actual seed. Through 2010, we are the only bracketology site to earn this distinction.